Are we reverting to Socialism again?

[Red Boyneside]

You do realise that the span of thought of these people ranges from Utopian socialists, who believed roast chickens would fly in peoples windows onto their dinner plates and the sea's would turn to lemonade (these influenced Marx's thinking) if socialism were attained, and that this could be done peacefully; all the way to Lenin who believed and used violence in the seizingcontrol of state aparatus.

But what they all shared was a belief in a statelss society, which was my point. BTW, Lenin didn't use violence to take power. The Petrograd soviet, which through the democratically elected military revolutionary committee, ordered the uprising. There was no violence involved, it was a bloodless seisure of power. Violence only came into it when the ruling class tried to crush the revolution and most of the powers who had been involved in the first world war invaded to assist them.

Please god give me a definition, whats your definition, what do you think socialism is? Don't keep telling me to find it in that lots writings as anytime I come back to you you'll simply say:
Thats not real socialism, thats Marxism, or Marxist-Lininist, or Stalinism etc. You see where I'm going with this?

.
I thought I had but for the sake of clarity, in a nutshell:
The first stage of Socialism, democratic workers and community councils federated with elected delegates on no more than the average workers wage and subject to recall at any time, plan the economy with the use of the best technology available, for need rather than greed. A democratic education system based on the ideas of Lev Vygotsky and Paolo Friere educating towards co-operation rather than competition. The aim of the government is to abolish itself by degree, so everyone learns to take back in the running of society. When this is happens and there are no longer any class antagonisms, people will be naturally carrying out the running of society as second nature so the state "withers away". This is the higher stage of Socialism, Communism or sometimes known as Anarchism.

Somalia is what happens when you remove government, socialist or not thats the result. Soviet Russia or Communist China is socialism with government.

No its what happens when you remove government without abolishing class antagonisms.

Dell began in the dorm room of Michael Dell, working himself, exploiting himself if we were to use your language. Apple & HP were created in garages, by two people each. Fabulous wealth ensued for these founders and many of their hardest working employees. Not to mention how these companies have improved the lives of millions across the world as a result of their work.

But the computer you are typing on now wasn't made by Michael Dell or whoever, it was made by people who work for him.

I'll deal with the rest of your arguement after I eat something.

[Red Boyneside]

You have to catch capitalists, because in case, when they escaped – you lost. Without their brains, socialism is way down to bottom

Most Capitalists (A few exceptions) have expertise in one area - making money. Its something that won't be needed in a Socialist society.

Bolsheviks had to restore money and unequal pay, as soon as they realized nobody want to work for equal pay

They never instituted equal pay. Why do people always assume thats what Socialism means? They had to restore money because Russia had to industrialise before it could move forward to Socialism. It was a backward country in 1917.

Lenin's “The State and Revolution” was very interesting 90 years ago, but now every paragraph can be easily beaten by real examples

Hit me.

Why they are staying in capitalist factory, instead of leaving and organizing their own?

Its brains you want mate!

[Pastradamus]

This does not make it a form of government, simply because Irish people(and as a result the government) see it essential to have private property(of which a market is the natural result).

Ireland can be called a Democratic Capitalist government. Its the core of Modern Irish Economics and economic policy influences the form of Government.

You can pretend as much as you like that these regimes don't truely represent socialism. Dance around the idea of having an actual definition for your belief so you can't have anything pinned on you. But you cannot escape the reality that these countries are the face of socialism in all it's glory.

These countries have many socialist influences and aspects about them, but socialism is a very broad term these days and anyone can use it. For god's sake even Bertie refered to himself as a socialist at one point.

By no other means can socialism come about or be achieved; states begin to devour themselves in an attempt to reach this contradictive, utopian, unachievable ideal.

Socialism can come about from a variety of different form's. Its not restricted to Land reform movements or acquisition of private property - Ask any Social Democrat or Democratic socialist about that.

Of course, even Hitler, as off his rocker as he was knew the results of abolishing private property. He needed everyone in the country being as productive as possible so it stands to reason that he would encourage "private initiative".

Im sick of this stupid "guilt by association" tripe.Its an easy to sway with polemic rhetoric, even though the claim has little substance or merit. The Nazi party-appropriated-term "socialism," like "democracy" in the cases above, was used to appeal to German workers for political support during the tentative early years of Hitler's ascent to power. Apart from the occasional use of empty pro-worker political rhetoric, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party had no inclination towards true socialism, in the sense that it's used today. Within the context of Hitler's unified, "racially-pure" Germany, Hitler instituted and supported social programs that on their surface had socialist structure. For example, his youth programs, education and indoctrination programs, reproduction programs, all borrowed some of their structure from existing "socialist" ideas, but insead of keeping the democratic spirit of socialist ideals, he simply borrowed what was popular to serve is quest for power. Whatever appeals Nazism made to the German worker, family, culture, and society —while in a very general sense were socialist —they were simply components in the totalitarian rule of the Nazi party.

The term Nazism typically has such a bad name that to link it to anything tends to tarnish the reputation of that other thing.

The same could be said of the United States military industrial complex, which operates with socialist/communist-like safeguards and protections, though its a part of a capitalist system.

Throughout its rise to power and rule, the Nazis were strongly opposed by left-wing and socialist parties, and Nazi rhetoric was virulently anti-Marxist, attacking both communists and social democrats. A central appeal of Nazism was its opposition to Marxism and other forms of socialism and its claim to be a bulwark against Bolshevism and this is why they recieved so much material and political support from industrialists and conservatives. The Nazi ideology saw socialist collectivism as part of a Jewish conspiracy (Judeo-Bolshevism) meant to undermine the elitist principle. Nazis proposed that only people who were considered "racially pure" or Aryan would benefit from their policies.
This can be seen as contrary to the socialist ideal of a society for the benefit of all.

In his rise to power, Hitler reassured German industrialists that he would respect private property and fight labor unions. To the extent that permitting private property to exist is contrary to "socialism", then Nazism was not "socialist". On the other hand, some democratic countries (like Sweden) have adopted some (but not all) socialist ideas while retaining a degree of freedom to own private property and have labor unions. Not only that but After coming to power, Hitler sent thousand of communists, social democrats and unionists to concentration camps and killed communist leaders in Germany. He outlawed labor unions and guaranteed corporate profits for Krupp & Co. The Nazis were anti-egalitarian believing in neither equality (either among Germans or between Germans and non-Germans), collectivism, nor the rights of the "masses". According to Hitler biographer Ian Kershaw they had an elitist view of society and asserted that in competition with each other the superior individual would emerge on top. Despite the use of slogans such as "the common good comes before the private good" their vision of social relations, in practice, was in line with the ideas of Nietzche rather than Karl Marx.

Not to mention the fact that the so-called 'left wing' nazi's such as Strasser and Rohm were purged in the 1930's.

Yes Fascism in Italy & Germany were incredibly popular, and it was through democracy that they came to power; which is something I think everyone in a free country should be mindful of.

Absolutely.

It's also interesting to note that it is a Fascist regime that is in power in Russia , another former socialist nation. Quite a coincidence don't you think? Fascism is only one step away from Socialism, one step behind.

There isn't a leftist in the world right now that would condone the Current russian government. Fascism is only one step from socialism but its also one step from capitalism and liberalism.

Equaly a man born with land and wealth will not keep it unless he is able to make it productive. Marx himself is a perfect example, being born into a wealthy family, marrying into aristocracy and still dieing with nothing to his name while his family lived in squalor, he was not even a worker, a member of his precious proletariat. He was a living contradiction of what he espoused and an example of it's results. He was a bum, a parasite.

So what if Karl Marx was born into a rich family? So your shallow enough to judge somebody's morality and social standing by their wealth?

So tell me some more about how the bourgeoise exploit the proletariat. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so, you can't refute reality with a mantra.

I've tried. Numerous times. We dont have to agree on this issue its about you actually understanding the socialist point of view. But rather your take a debate to be some kind of personal insult.

This is why socialism is not in anyform scientific, as it refuses to see how it's theory has been disproven and refuted (time and again)by the simple reality of the world we live in. Reality is a contradiction of socialist thought. Socialism is the intelligent design of economic & political theories.

Socialism is a poilitical science connected to Social science amongst other forms. You have failed to disprove Socialism. Socialism is reality, it was brought about for a reason by a reason. It didnt just pop up over night as some sort of fairy tale like you ignorantly make it out to be.

So it is the workers who cannot do this that are not productive that are left, they are the ones who stand to benefit from seizing the means of production from the wealth creators.

How many members of the working class do you know right now with the capital to create a business?

So again this would bring us to the point of slavery, where this useless group of "workers"

That says more about you than them.

Based on the work they put in?
This is a(nother) fatal flaw of socialism, that the value of something is dependant on the effort put into it.

Yes under capitalism. Thats what happens, its called "labour costs" and up's the value of a product.

A "worker" could exert tremendous effort polishing rocks, in socialist theory these rocks are then valuable.

What kind of capitalist hires someone to polish rocks? Unless they are of course valuable 'rocks' such as Gold or silver.

Is a doctors work not worth more than a bin man?
Is a teachers work not worth more than the staff in McDonnalds?

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need"- Karl Marx.
Does that answer your question?

Under capitalism this worker is free to enjoy the full fruits of his work

So a worker who produces €100,000 per week worth of equiptment in a factory takes home €400 per week and is free to "enjoy the full fruits of his work"????

No something is not of value because of the work put into it; value, like love is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of work can go into building a home, even a €1Million worth, but unless someone is willing to pay €1Million the home is not worth €1Million, no matter how much work goes into it.

In capitalist society, the market value of a product is determined by profit. Price is increased when cost's increase i.e Labour cost, Plant cost, Materials etc...

Why would someone pay so much for a work of art from someone such as Da Vinci? Surely the same amount of work went into the creation of his painting as anyone elses, so why are his paintings worth so much more?

Because Da Vinci is a famous historical figure and a work of art is appreciated in every country of the world and so getting your hands on a Da Vinci painting is Unique of which people bid a lot of money. Its uniqueness makes it valuable.

It is because someone is willing to pay, it is because those paintings are worth something to the eye of the beholder. Not the work put in.

So hypothetically,if Da Vinci printed off thousands of these paintings then they would still be just as valuable? Supply & Demand my friend.

Shortages, in food, consumer goods, poverty, famine. There is a reason socialist nations tend to be so millitarised, it is in order to put down the population, who would (and did) revolt as a result of such shortages, the socialist government would not remain in power for long.

For example Soviet Russia. Famines did occur but were much much much more common under the Tsar and Sociaist policies are responsible for eliminating the famine aspect due to collectivised farming and the creation of huge yields of crops. Every left-wing country has been at some stage attacked or threatened by the US and other western powers.

In short, socialism results in the destruction of wealth, and impoverishment of all.

No, people listen because socialism gives the impression that you can get something for nothing. That all those have nots can become haves if they would only take it from them. Never once thinking why they are the have nots in the first place. They listen because they are the most uneducated and most easily manipulated group in society, they are the braun, not the brains. It takes little thought to pick up a weapon and rob your neighbor.

Take the NHS in the UK. Socialised medicine. The NHS is committed to providing quality care that meets the needs of everyone, is free at the point of need, and is based on a patient's clinical need, not their ability to pay. The NHS will not exclude people because of their health status or ability to pay. Its a service provided by the government paid for by tax revenue. Its paid for by tax and the UK government states that this is "not a charity".

AnPost is a business (a government granted monopoly) and lives off it's revenue, apart from it's monopoly status it is not being subsidised by the state.

Yes and would you agree that they provide a good service at a very reasonable low cost?

Who pays for the schools and everything else? Businesses, the creaters of wealth, without whom the state would have nothing to pay their beuracrats and politicians or anyone else on the pay roles.

Who takes care of the underprivliged? Social welfare. A socialist concept. Books for underprivlidged kids etc...

It is not socialism that provides these things in our country but capitalism, the wealth created from the capitalists. And as I said, who would vote to kill the golden goose, to kill the very motor that has kept them alive?

What golden goose? and why would socialism kill it?

For an example of socialism in action look at Venezuela , as the country progressively nationalises more industries and private property things get worse. The country has 31% inflation, and now food shortages have started. How long before the country moves from having food lines to having no food at all with outright famine?

Have you statistics and evidence to back this up?

Both were Fascists, one happened to be out of his god damn mind.

No, one was Nazi the other Fascist. There are numerous differences.

Better unemployment than famine I should think, or are you thinking our nation needs a diet?

Why would socialism bring about famine? realistically speaking.

[bormotello]

Most Capitalists (A few exceptions) have expertise in one area - making money. Its something that won't be needed in a Socialist society.

Not necessary
Money for some of them nothing
For some of them power is more important then luxury cars and money is only tool to get a power.
All capitalist are very good in one area – they all can organize people to do what they want

They never instituted equal pay. Why do people always assume thats what Socialism means? They had to restore money because Russia had to industrialise before it could move forward to Socialism. It was a backward country in 1917.

Free advice
Don’t trust propaganda
Always recheck facts
Learn Russian and read archives, which has opened during Glasnost to see what was exactly happen during this time
Reintroduction of money – NEP(New Economic Policy) – 1921
Decision about industrialization has been made in 1928
Don’t tell me that it was plan of Stalin in 1921 about industrialization.
In 1921 he was only one from many others.

Hit me.

You or Lenin?

[dublinclontarf]

Sadly I am going offline now for a few days and cannot continue this debate, but I must say I have enjoyed it very much and thank everyone for their participation.

Have a good week chaps.

[Sucker Punch]

This from The Nation, well worth a look.

"The great promise of capitalism, as first suggested by Adam Smith and recently enshrined in "market fundamentalism," was that we didn't have to figure anything out, because the market would take care of everything for us. Instead of promoting self-reliance, this version of free enterprise fostered passivity in the face of that inscrutable deity, the Market. Deregulate, let wages fall to their "natural" level, turn what remains of government into an endless source of bounty for contractors--whee! Well, that hasn't worked, and the core idea of socialism still stands: that people can get together and figure out how to solve their problems, or at least a lot of their problems, collectively. That we--not the market or the capitalists or some elite group of über-planners--have to control our own destiny. "

Reimagining Socialism

Regards.

[onlyasking]

Not that I care if you do or not, but if you go back and actually read the last few posts you'll see that those posts relating to the public production of money were very relevant to the conversation. It was a RESPONSE (funny concept on a chat forum.

My initial post on this thread was in response to ThacOman.
I wrote -
”To all the Friedman-worshippers, please remove your heads from your backsides and look around. Friedman's disciples have led the world to an economic catastrophe.”

I wrote a hell of a lot more, none of which remotely touched on theoretical differences between Friedman and Hayek. You decided to take up the cudgel on behalf of ThacOman, presenting nothing by way of a counter-argument re Friedman but merely opening a sideline, irrelevant to my engagement with ThacOman, about Friedman’s theories being monumentally opposed to Hayek’s. The fact that your response wasn’t relevant to my argument with ThacOman didn’t prevent you from stating, in the dismissive manner so natural to the highly self-esteemed, “let me stop you right there”.

If you’re getting tetchy about my attempt to keep free-market cheerleaders from hijacking the thread in order to obfuscate the unravelling of the system they’ve been cheerleading for, that’s an issue for you to address, not me.

I'll refer you to above, it was in RESPONSE to a claim by other people in this post that capitalism was to blame for the situation our country is in and that socialism is what is NEEDED (Thread title: Are we reverting to Socialism again? - I think this discussion is totally relevant)

Silly me. Of course it’s crystal clear to objective thinkers that capitalism has played no part in the financial and existential catastrophe facing billions of people, the cause of which is obviously big, bad government, with closet socialists like GW Bush and Gordon Brown. and overt socialists like Bertie Ahern, taking people’s hard-earned money and diverting it to schools, hospitals and social(istic) welfare payments. Yeah, right.

The thrust of my argument has been that this state could never have been described as socialist, having established myriad structures for the betterment of the well-off, possessing a taxation system under which some of the richest people in the land pay little tax, and with one of the widest gaps between rich and poor to be found anywhere in the developed world. These arguments against the half-baked assertions that the republic is remotely socialist in nature have been ignored, in your case for a sideline on anti-socialist theorists.

That has to be the single WORST "example" I've seen on politics.ie of how capitalism "got our country into the mess we're in".... You have given us absolutely ZERO theories of how capitalism caused the recession, all you've essentially said is "De-regulation caused it" !! Hahaha, I mean COME ON !! After spouting all your talk I think you should go back to the drawing board and come back to us all and post an actual theory! Nonsense.

I’m impressed by your impression of a capitalist Chemical Ali, standing amidst the ruins but ignoring what is patently clear to everyone else. I’m sure you’d have been at home in the ruins of Berlin in 1945, demanding a theoretical justification for the assertion that Nazi Germany’s days were numbered.

Why the hell would anyone feel the need to theorise about capitalism’s part in its own unravelling, such a process having its roots in the banking structures at the heart of capitalism itself? You’re in a tiny minority of right-wing economic fundamentalists who simply can’t accept being wrong.

The simple fact that you, or anyone else, can quote theory tells us not an iota about the value of that theory. Just like sectarian, dogmatic followers of Marx, Mao, or those who unerringly follow any other socialist doctrine, you’ve got this fundamentalist idea that the components of human existence can be examined and theorised on like Einstein’s Relativity. Economic theories are not like those which have been scientifically validated to prove their accuracy, such as in the case of physics or biology. You are a believer in a doctrine. I’m not. I’m a human, not a sheep. There is not, nor can there be, any overarching economic “theory of everything”. The great range of human cultures, value systems and environments precludes that.

It's quite obvious that you came to this thread at page 14 or so and have not bothered reading any of it. We've already done this. 20000miles has even posted charts for Christs sake!! Again, not that I care if you do or not because you've already in my opinion shown yourself to be just another chancer who is just set in an "anti-capitalistic" mindset, but go back and read the bloody thread then come back to us.

Unlike you, buddy, I came to this thread a page 1, line 1. That’s why I’m not letting you dictate the course of the discussion I’m in i.e. the one dealing with the original post.

Charts, WOW. Whatever next? You’re an excitable fella, aren’t you. Don’t forget to thank your alter-ego for this groundbreaking development.

Seeing as you’re getting a little crotchety, may I suggest you have a nice cup of splosh, it’ll calm you down and clear your head. You need it.

There you go again! Your posts just smack of anti-capitalist idealogical hatred. You're not willing to discuss the causes of the recession, you are just hell-bent on your views and that's final. You clearly have an idealogical agenda and so we can't really take your posts as constructive or analytical when it comes to our critique of the economic mess. This is a discussion forum, if you don't want to discuss and just want to argue then go take up boxing or something to release your anger.

So you’re not engaging in anti-socialist “ideological hatred”? You’re not “hell-bent on your views”? You don’t have an “idealogical (sic) agenda”? I’d like you to address those questions, by the way, as I’m becoming overpowered by the stench of hypocrisy.

Couldn't care less if you do or not. Irrelevant.

Stunning argument.

You asked me to tell you their differences on public monopoly on the production of money that's what I gave you, the two polar-opposite views held by Friedman and Hayek. Your question of "are they similar in other views" is irrelevant to this conversation.

You still haven’t explained how many leading right-wing free-market zealots embrace both Hayek and Friedman, if, as you say, they held “polar opposite” views on significant economic theories.

You are the one who in your last post has went on a mad one about people talking about random things with nothing to do with the thread topic.

“Mad one”, “nonsense”, “irrelevant”, “random things”. You’re on a roll, aren’t you?

I put it to you that this statement is totally irrelevant and therefore contributes nothing to this thread (if I were going by your previous blasts at members posts).

“I put it to you”? Jolly good, but surely it should read “I put it to you, Sir”. That’d be nice.

Nobody on this thread is against any of the things you've said above.

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know you’ve just typed words you don’t actually believe. Not a good habit.

Nobody. Charitable acts are admirable and should be done more often by more people in my opinion. But voluntarily.

Typical right-wing jack-assery. There should be no system of taxation. The rich should just get to choose how much they’ll give to the less well off by way of charity. Stick your “charity” up your backside, why don’t you. What a joke.

Our country is heavily socialist.

And Bertie was one of the last true socialists. I’m beginning to think you’re having a laugh. Or perhaps you really do think that any government that operates a revenue collection system is by definition socialist.

It does not block private enterprise from entering certain fields like education, health etc - but it certainly does hinder it by it's involvement in these sectors in my opinion (that's the little thing that adults on chat forums are allowed to discuss with people - opinions!)

Of course, government should leave everything up to the market. Schools, hospitals, prisons etc, all run for profit. To you and your ilk, the only role government should have is to police those who'd like to take the rich and powerful down a a peg or two. That's why you genuflect at the altar of Hayek.

Finally, I suppose that little thing called respecting other peoples “opinions” is why you feel free to announce “let me stop you right there” as a first point of engagement? You really should read what you type before hitting “submit”.

[lifelibertyandproperty]

My initial post on this thread was in response to ThacOman.
I wrote -
”To all the Friedman-worshippers, please remove your heads from your backsides and look around. Friedman's disciples have led the world to an economic catastrophe.”

I wrote a hell of a lot more, none of which remotely touched on theoretical differences between Friedman and Hayek. You decided to take up the cudgel on behalf of ThacOman, presenting nothing by way of a counter-argument re Friedman but merely opening a sideline, irrelevant to my engagement with ThacOman, about Friedman’s theories being monumentally opposed to Hayek’s.

Ok here it is.

Friedman thought paper/fiat (made up out of thin air) money was good. He based everything else on that assumption. Hayek & Mises 100% disagreeded and argued that it would inevitably lead to excessive money creation (again out of thin air) which would cause inflation and a boom bust cycle. What government that can merely print money for whatever it wanted such as war (for neo-cons) or social programs (for lefties) would not do it? The answer is none, they all have done it. Central Banking facilitates this process. The question of what is money and why is THE most fundamental question to Hayek & Mises. Their arguement goes that because Friedman is wrong on what money should be, everything he says about its deployment afterwards is irrelevant. The question over central banking and fiat (again made up out of thin air) money decides everything after. Central Banking is a form of state control and Hayek & Mises would argue that the gold standard prevented government from devaluing the money supply so they could only spend what they had.

It might seem that Friedman, Mises & Hayek were all the same to someone who merely skims over the detail but they are 100% at polar opposite ends of the scale on the ONE most important issue;

fiat/paper (made up out of thin air) money and state control of it through the central banking system V hard currency (such as the gold standard) that the market accepts and no central banking/state control.

I can understand that many people find this difficult to understand as they have never heard the debate before but it is vital to understanding the series of global economic crisis we have faced under the current system and the collapse of the international monetary pyramiad scheme we are witnessing now.

[Hazlitt]

My initial post on this thread was in response to ThacOman.
I wrote -
”To all the Friedman-worshippers, please remove your heads from your backsides and look around. Friedman's disciples have led the world to an economic catastrophe.”

I wrote a hell of a lot more, none of which remotely touched on theoretical differences between Friedman and Hayek. You decided to take up the cudgel on behalf of ThacOman, presenting nothing by way of a counter-argument re Friedman but merely opening a sideline, irrelevant to my engagement with ThacOman, about Friedman’s theories being monumentally opposed to Hayek’s.

Thac0man mentioned nothing about Friedman in your linked post, so I don't know where you came up with labelling all the people on the thread who were defending free-markets in money production "Friedman-worshippers". . .

If you were reading the thread you would have seen that the majority of people defending free markets were espousing the views of Friedrich Hayek and not Milton Friedman, as you referred to "all the Friedman-worshippers" I was correcting you that the likes of myself, 20000miles, atlantic etc are Hayekian as opposed to "Friedmanites"... if you think that this was a random point from me then you're entitled to your opinion but you are wrong, it was a very relevant point.

I want to also point out the other nonsense you wrote after that above statement:

Friedman's disciples have led the world to an economic catastrophe. It’s on the news, and it’s in the print media. Check the internet. I’m not making it up. Wake up, and smell the coffee. That Starbucks might even still be in business.

Now what we asked you to do (and you still haven't done it by the way) is show us how "Friedmans disciples" have led the world to this economic mess ? You go and point out that Thatcher and Reagan through government monetary policy "fiscally raped their societies" but you still haven't joined the dots and seen the obvious point that under a Hayekian system then this would be impossible, the system that me and others here were advocating.

If you’re getting tetchy about my attempt to keep free-market cheerleaders from hijacking the thread in order to obfuscate the unravelling of the system they’ve been cheerleading for, that’s an issue for you to address, not me.

Absolutely not. We welcome discussion on this discussion board. However you are unwilling to answer queries to back up your statement that "Friedman-worshippers" (akin to boogy-men at this stage) "have led the world to an economic catastrophe". I and others on the thread have given our opinions of why the bust has followed boom, we have backed it up with a credible theory, and you have posted nothing by means of backing up your remarks. We're still waiting.

The thrust of my argument has been that this state could never have been described as socialist,

You can not argue against the fact that monetary production in our country is completely socialised. You may have glanced over previous posts in this thread but you obviously haven't read them and understood them. We have a European government-controlled central bank that owns the exclusive and sole rights through law of the production of money... is this anything but socialised money? I don't see how you can refute this argument but I invite you to attempt it.

you’ve got this fundamentalist idea that the components of human existence can be examined and theorised on like Einstein’s Relativity. Economic theories are not like those which have been scientifically validated to prove their accuracy, such as in the case of physics or biology.

You are completely wrong. I do not believe this. Look at my sig that may give you a clue. Mises and Hayek (and I) share your opinion that Economics is not like Physics and Biology in that you can not control or test theories in all the same ways as these empirical sciences. Mises "asserts that the core of economic theory is composed of a priori concepts, propositions whose truth is arrived at by contemplation rather than through empirical research."

However, your comments are contradictory, you can't agree with this fact and yet also scoff at economic theories such as the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle when you say "The simple fact that you, or anyone else, can quote theory tells us not an iota about the value of that theory." Like the statement above says, the value of the theory can be discovered through contemplation. We are still waiting for an explanation from you (empirical or theoretical) on your explanation for the current recession.

... That’s why I’m not letting you dictate the course of the discussion I’m in i.e. the one dealing with the original post.

More correctly you are trying to avoid the discussion. We still await your theory as to the cause of the economic downturn. Blaming it on capitalism and defending the governments socialisation of money production without any form of explanation or theory just shows you up for a "capitalist-hater" with nothing substantial to add to the discussion.

Seeing as you’re getting a little crotchety, may I suggest you have a nice cup of splosh, it’ll calm you down and clear your head. You need it.

"Stunning argument"

“Mad one”, “nonsense”, “irrelevant”, “random things”. You’re on a roll, aren’t you?

"Stunning argument"

HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I know you’ve just typed words you don’t actually believe. Not a good habit.

Absolutely not. I always find it humerous how you loony-lefties claim to have the monopoly on goodness, morality and charity but like all your other so-called "arguments" in your previous posts, you have absolutely nothing of substance from which to back your statements up.

Typical right-wing jack-assery. There should be no system of taxation. The rich should just get to choose how much they’ll give to the less well off by way of charity. Stick your “charity” up your backside, why don’t you. What a joke.

I find it incredible that you have a problem with private charitable acts, associations, donations, community-groups etc. The difference between you and me is that I favour voluntary co-operation between people in society. You would prefer to take peoples money from them and dictate to them how you think it would be better spent.

Of course, government should leave everything up to the market. Schools, hospitals, prisons etc, all run for profit. To you and your ilk, the only role government should have is to police those who'd like to take the rich and powerful down a a peg or two.

That last sentence says it all really. Your agenda is plainly obvious. To be honest I don't have a problem with people holding socialist viewpoints, but what I can't stand is people like you who hold ideological views without any logical reasoning or arguments from which you can back up or convince any of us why we would be better under a socialist country than a free-market one.

Finally, I suppose that little thing called respecting other peoples “opinions” is why you feel free to announce “let me stop you right there” as a first point of engagement?

I wanted to stop you at your first pointless remark before going on your ridiculous rant about "Friedman-worshippers" when we were all discussing free-market money production - something which Milton Friedman held completely different opinions on.


lifelibertyandproperty - good post on the difference between Hayek and Friedman's views on money-production. More than likely this point will be completely lost on fools such as onlyasking
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[onlyasking]

Thac0man mentioned nothing about Friedman in your linked post

And nobody, literally nobody, had mentioned anything about Hayek until you brought him up in your reply to me.

The first paragraph I wrote to ThacOman contained this:
“I could have replied to any number of lunatic assertions I've seen here, the main gist of which would seem to be that this country wouldn't be in the mess it's in if only de-regulated free market fundamentalism had been given free rein. To all the Friedman-worshippers, please remove your heads from your backsides and look around. Friedman's disciples have led the world to an economic catastrophe.”

As you can see I was drawing more people than ThacOman into my argument, people like MortgageBroker, Atlantic, and Retrolives. They were arguing that the Irish economy was in tatters because there hadn’t been enough de-regulation of financial services because of the inherent socialism of the Irish state, and I was countering on the basis that mainstream capitalists, with their unshakeable belief in the wonders of the free-markets, had driven the global financial system to a state of near-collapse. Their blind faith is inextricably linked to the work of Friedman.

Your approach to my argument was to state that we couldn’t blame Hayek, because his approach to paper money was opposed to that of Friedman. A bit like an anti-socialist pillorying Lenin, only to be told that he shouldn’t attack Mao.

If you were reading the thread you would have seen that the majority of people defending free markets were espousing the views of Friedrich Hayek and not Milton Friedman, as you referred to "all the Friedman-worshippers" I was correcting you that the likes of myself, 20000miles, atlantic etc are Hayekian as opposed to "Friedmanites"... if you think that this was a random point from me then you're entitled to your opinion but you are wrong, it was a very relevant point.

Absolute rubbish. A lie. Go back over the thread and give me the examples of how the “majority of people defending the free markets were espousing the views of Hayek and not Milton Friedman”.

Here’s a couple of examples of the espousal of Friedman by your buddies here: “I’ll talk Friedman”, “even Friedman himself”. Not only that, we had a general attack on the “socialist” policies of the Socialist Republic of Ireland, with the lunatic assertions by your mate Atlantic that the government comes out at election time peddling “socialist claptrap”, generating an “envy frenzy”, and then “taxing the sh1te out of us”.

And what did you have to say to these obviously lunatic assertions:

Spot on Atlantic

I’m glad you’ve nailed your colours so firmly to his mast, because the assertions that the coalitions of FF and PDs were peddling “socialist claptrap” is as laughable as suggesting that the Irish, of all people, were having the “sh1te taxed out of us”.

I suppose, given that you believe in economic theories the truth of which is “arrived at by contemplation”, that our position, in reality, at the bottom of the table of developed nations with regard to our being taxed by government, can be conveniently overlooked while you “contemplate” our struggle under the socialist yoke.

Let me remind you who introduced Hayek into this thread, it was none other than you, and it was after I posted my first thread, in reply to which you brought up the diversion from my attack on mainstream free-marketeers. I note your tendency to mock others i.e. “HAHAHA” in quite a few of your snotty retorts. You’ve been found out for the bullsh1tter you are here.

You can not argue against the fact that monetary production in our country is completely socialised.

The money supply in this country has nothing whatsoever to do with our government, the one which you and your buddies would have us believe runs a high-taxation socialist welfare state. In case you haven’t heard, the ECB is in charge, and Ireland has one of the lowest tax regimes.

You may have glanced over previous posts in this thread but you obviously haven't read them and understood them.

Given your mendacious account of the flow of the argument here, as illuminated earlier, I’ll not be taking any lessons from you on reading and understanding anything.

We have a European government-controlled central bank that owns the exclusive and sole rights through law of the production of money... is this anything but socialised money? I don't see how you can refute this argument but I invite you to attempt it.

Ah, now you’re getting it. It’s ECB money, not the Socialist Republic of Ireland’s money. It’s a strange kind of socialism though, money being printed by people who have absolutely no input into our tax system or our social welfare spending. Pretty non-centralised for a “socialist” entity eh?

You are completely wrong. I do not believe this. Look at my sig that may give you a clue. Mises and Hayek (and I) share your opinion that Economics is not like Physics and Biology in that you can not control or test theories in all the same ways as these empirical sciences. Mises "asserts that the core of economic theory is composed of a priori concepts, propositions whose truth is arrived at by contemplation rather than through empirical research."

It’s interesting how dogmatic you are given that you believe in a gospel the truth of which “is arrived at by contemplation rather than through empirical research”. Your blind faith is touching. You’ll have to do better than “you are completely wrong, I do not believe this”.

However, your comments are contradictory, you can't agree with this fact and yet also scoff at economic theories such as the Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle when you say "The simple fact that you, or anyone else, can quote theory tells us not an iota about the value of that theory."

I tend to scoff at irrational but passionately-held beliefs.

Like the statement above says, the value of the theory can be discovered through contemplation. We are still waiting for an explanation from you (empirical or theoretical) on your explanation for the current recession.

Capitalism is the world’s greatest confidence trick. It’s a con-job, literally. People, in response to invitations from vested interests, invest their money in enterprises they’re confident will give them an acceptable return on their investment. Pyramid schemes are the base example of this concept. This confidence trick was thrashed beyond the limits in the past decade, with deregulation of financial services providing numerous mechanisms into which vast sums of investment funds flowed. All great, until the confidence at the heart of the con-job evaporated. All we heard was a great big raspberry when the confidence roared out of the balloon.

More correctly you are trying to avoid the discussion. We still await your theory as to the cause of the economic downturn. Blaming it on capitalism and defending the governments socialisation of money production without any form of explanation or theory just shows you up for a "capitalist-hater" with nothing substantial to add to the discussion.

I’m trying to argue on the subjects of Ireland’s alleged socialist nature, and the responsibility of the free-markets for their own implosion. You’re the one who’s avoiding that discussion, preferring an almost theological elaboration of why big, bad government gets in the way of everything from fairness to charity.

I always find it humerous how you loony-lefties claim to have the monopoly on goodness, morality and charity but like all your other so-called "arguments" in your previous posts, you have absolutely nothing of substance from which to back your statements up.

While not claiming any such monopoly, it’s pretty easy to argue that people of the right make a virtue out of mean-mindedness. Before you blow your top, as is your wont, let’s have a couple of example to back that up.

Just making the point that nobody (sane) is in favour of free education.

That’s in your post #88.

When Colada wrote “I like the term People before Profit, you wrote

You had to go and ruin it

Your alter ego 2000 Miles wrote:

I am in favour of abolishing State welfare.

So, clearly, you and your cohorts put profit before people, want to limit education to the better-off, and want to abolish the welfare state. Then you have the cheek to go on a deeply indignant rant about “how you loony-lefties claim to have the monopoly on goodness, morality and charity”. Again, the stench of hypocrisy is overpowering.

I find it incredible that you have a problem with private charitable acts, associations, donations, community-groups etc. The difference between you and me is that I favour voluntary co-operation between people in society.

More lies. More misrepresentation. I have no problem, and you know it, with “private charitable acts, associations, donations, community-groups etc”. I do have a problem with your assertion that the safety-net of social welfare should be replaced by charitable acts, presumably funded by well-off business types who’d never ever refer to “dole-scroungers” on “the scratch”. Your faith in a kind and generous capitalist utopia, with the rich digging deep to help the poor, is on a par with your faith in the gospels of an assortment of dead right-wing economic gurus. In other words, it beggars belief.

You would prefer to take peoples money from them and dictate to them how you think it would be better spent.

Your pal Mortgagebroker wrote:
“even friedman himself would admit that you do need a 'state' and that they have a roll to play, albeit a limited one, for instance - you do need to have judiciary who are not swayed by private bosses, you do need police etc”

How do you propose to fund the police and judiciary?

That last sentence says it all really. Your agenda is plainly obvious.

It’s interesting that to people like you agendas are the preserve of people of the left. The Chicago Boys didn’t operate to an agenda, did they? And of course you don’t have an agenda. You’re above all that, of course.

I wanted to stop you at your first pointless remark before going on your ridiculous rant about "Friedman-worshippers" when we were all discussing free-market money production - something which Milton Friedman held completely different opinions on.

Your arrogance is impressive, though not surprising. “We were all discussing free-market money production”. Come back to me with the names that constitute the “all” in that assertion. There’s yourself, Hazlitt, and yourself, 2000 miles, and a few others. The fact that you ascribe wisdom exclusively to other rabid free-marketeers speaks volumes about your fanaticism.

lifelibertyandproperty - good post on the difference between Hayek and Friedman's views on money-production. More than likely this point will be completely lost on fools such as onlyasking
[COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

Ooooh, dearie me. That’s put me in my place.